Log in

User Name

Password

Remember Me?

Lost Password Recovery Form

If you have forgotten your username or password, you can request to have your username emailed to you and to reset your password. When you fill in your registered email address, you will be sent instructions on how to reset your password.

Modern Women vs Traditional Women: Relationships and Workplace

I'm doing a project and I'm also curious of this subject.
I just need a few questions answered and you reasoning for your answers.

Do you think its a contradiction to have men treat women in a traditional manner, while women don't have to be traditional anymore?

For Men: Do you prefer traditional women over modern women?
How do you treat women at work?
How do you feel about women in the workplace? Do you like it? Do you respect them or do you just see them as something to look at?
How does a woman working affection your relationship?

For Women: Do you like the idea of a being a traditional woman(housewife) or are you complacent with being in the workforce and having equal rights as men.
Do you think your truly equal?
How does work influence your role as a woman and as a wife?
If men "traditionally" were suppose to pay bills and act as a supporter how does that influence your relationship now?

For Men: Do you prefer traditional women over modern women? Define traditional vs modern.
How do you treat women at work? The same way I treat anyone: respectfully.
How do you feel about women in the workplace? Do you like it? Do you respect them or do you just see them as something to look at? Women are in the workplace for the same reason men are in the workplace. To work.
How does a woman working affection your relationship? This question needs to be rephrased.

For Women: Do you like the idea of a being a traditional woman(housewife) or are you complacent with being in the workforce and having equal rights as men.

any woman should be allowed to do whatever she damn well pleases. if she wants to be a housewife, that's fine, it's her choice. if she wants to have an office-based career, that's fine, it's her choice. if she wants to be a nurse, that's fine, it's her choice. if she wants to work on a construction site, that's fine, it's her choice.

your question is oddly phrased. do you mean to imply that a housewife should not have equal rights as men? why is the word "complacent" used?

Do you think your truly equal? women are equal to men. however, society largely treats women as second-class citizens at best and cattle at worst. it is paramount that this be changed in the future. hell, it is paramount that everyone be treated equally in the future.

How does work influence your role as a woman and as a wife??

If men "traditionally" were suppose to pay bills and act as a supporter how does that influence your relationship now?i'm not sure what you're asking here.

Do you think its a contradiction to have men treat women in a traditional manner, while women don't have to be traditional anymore?

of course it is. treat a person the way they want to be treated. if a woman does not want to have children, or if she wants to work a traditionally male job, you have absolutely no right to tell her otherwise or deride her for her choice.

"women are equal to men. however, society largely treats women as second-class citizens at best and cattle at worst. it is paramount that this be changed in the future. hell, it is paramount that everyone be treated equally in the future."

in 2150 when people can and do change sex whenever they please, sexual inequality will seem as obsoletely barbaric as slavery.

The Following User Says Thank You to Velocity Kendall For This Useful Post:

Yeah, something about the word "complacent" is kind of offending me there.

And would any male ever really answer "yes" to the question of whether a woman in the workplace was just there to be looked at? I don't think sexism like that is overt anymore. The remaining bits of sexism are more subtle and insidious.

What kind of project? School project? What class/subject? Or are you just (not also) curious?
"About," not "of."

I just need a few questions answered and you reasoning for your answers.

Ask, don't tell. You would like some questions answered, you don't need them (and even if you do, we don't need to answer them for you).
"Your," not "you."

Do you think its a contradiction to have men treat women in a traditional manner, while women don't have to be traditional anymore?

As has already been pointed out, your entire enterprise is flawed because you aren't defining your terms. What exactly do you mean by "traditional" and "modern?"

For Men: Do you prefer traditional women over modern women?
How do you treat women at work?
How do you feel about women in the workplace? Do you like it? Do you respect them or do you just see them as something to look at?
How does a woman working affection your relationship?

See above. Also, avoid setting up dichotomies if you want open answers. On the other hand, if you want people to choose, give more options.
"Affect," not "affection."

For Women: Do you like the idea of a being a traditional woman(housewife) or are you complacent with being in the workforce and having equal rights as men.
Do you think your truly equal?
How does work influence your role as a woman and as a wife?
If men "traditionally" were suppose to pay bills and act as a supporter how does that influence your relationship now?

At last, some clarification of "traditional."
"Complacent": I don't think this word means what you think it means.
"You're," not "your."

Usually I leave them alone. If they're working I don't want to bother them. Unless they're REALLY attractive in which case I'll distract the shit out of them. Usually they turn me down and say "Hey I'm working here, go away!"

How do you feel about women in the workplace? Do you like it? Do you respect them or do you just see them as something to look at?

I edited it to "overt" instead. Since it's still pervasive, but everyone knows it's a no-no. Doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, but I think most sexists I've encountered don't even KNOW they are sexist. They think they are progressive and instead end up being patronizing. That's just my experience, though.

They might not say it out loud, but there are plenty of piggish guys who would think it. And of course there are plenty of decent guys who wouldn't.

That was my point, Liffey. That you aren't going to get honest answers from most sexist people. Whether because they are in denial, or because they've learned those opinions aren't popular to express out loud.

And would any male ever really answer "yes" to the question of whether a woman in the workplace was just there to be looked at? I don't think sexism like that is overt anymore. The remaining bits of sexism are more subtle and insidious.

I don't think anyone would answer yes to that question on a public forum with members of both genders like this one. Perhaps if it were an anonymous survey they would, but even then, the question is phrased in such a way that the survey is telling you this is a shitty thing to admit to. It's like asking "Are you kind of an asshole?" instead of "Do you sometimes purposefully perform actions that make other people unhappy?" The latter might actually encourage people to admit things they're not proud of whereas the former accuses the subject and alienates them.

About the 'complacent' question, I think the problem there might be the writer doesn't actually know what that word means.. it doesn't seem to fit in that sentence at all.

The Following User Says Thank You to dierat For This Useful Post:

Its for a school project for English.
She just told me to ask questions comparing traditional woman and modern day women and how they were treated then and now.
I made the questions. Sorry if there badly written my grade is slipping and this is a side project so i can graduate lol

Yeah...sorry, but thanks for the input!
How should I reword it so it won't be offensive.
It's due next monday so I just wanted to see what others would say.
I also have to right an essay and do a presentation as well.

Efesyric - it would help if we knew what your paper is about, IE what is your thesis, what are you trying to demonstrate and what are pivotal questions on this matter. Right now it`s like you walked in here and wrote "Yellow. Discuss."
Give us some context.

Also, you might want to make your questions sound a bit less "1950".
And check your spelling.

I would like modern payment instead of traditional payment for my work. No, scratch that, I would like whatever payment women are getting in the distant future when we actually get equal pay for equal work.

Which, last I checked, we still don't.

Do you like the idea of a being a traditional woman(housewife) or are you complacent with being in the workforce and having equal rights as men. "Complacent"???? That's possibly the most unfortunate choice of wording I've ever seen... Not sure what you're trying to imply, but it doesn't sound remotely positive.

Do you think your truly equal? Fuck yes? The fact that anyone even has to ask if women and men are "truly equal" in this day and age shows how screwed up this society still is... (On the other hand do I think we get equal treatment? Fuck no.)

How does work influence your role as a woman and as a wife? Uh, work lets me eat and pay the rent? And what's this "wife" business anyway?

If men "traditionally" were suppose to pay bills and act as a supporter how does that influence your relationship now? What relationship? And why do you assume there are men involved?

D- for grammar and clarity, F for implied sexism in the questions and phrasing. Possibly unintended, but for goodness sake think these things through a little better... And PROOFREAD.

Yeah...sorry, but thanks for the input!
How should I reword it so it won't be offensive.
It's due next monday so I just wanted to see what others would say.
I also have to right an essay and do a presentation as well.

Yeah, I think the top priority is to stop abusing the English language. Work on your grammar please.

This is a very weird project for an english class. Sociology or psychology, sounds about right. But English?

Yup! English.
The topic came from "Of Mice and Men" mainly Curley's wife. Since the story was set around the 1930's ( this was what my teacher said) women were still treated badly and she told me to do an assignment comparing traditional women which I'm assuming is women in that time period to women now.

Even with this extra credit project, your teacher should not let you pass English. It's obvious you are still struggling with spelling, vocabulary, and grammar. It would benefit you as a person to retake the class, I think.

I would like modern payment instead of traditional payment for my work. No, scratch that, I would like whatever payment women are getting in the distant future when we actually get equal pay for equal work.

Which, last I checked, we still don't.

Do you like the idea of a being a traditional woman(housewife) or are you complacent with being in the workforce and having equal rights as men. "Complacent"???? That's possibly the most unfortunate choice of wording I've ever seen... Not sure what you're trying to imply, but it doesn't sound remotely positive.

Do you think your truly equal? Fuck yes? The fact that anyone even has to ask if women and men are "truly equal" in this day and age shows how screwed up this society still is... (On the other hand do I think we get equal treatment? Fuck no.)

How does work influence your role as a woman and as a wife? Uh, work lets me eat and pay the rent? And what's this "wife" business anyway?

If men "traditionally" were suppose to pay bills and act as a supporter how does that influence your relationship now? What relationship? And why do you assume there are men involved?

D- for grammar and clarity, F for implied sexism in the questions and phrasing. Possibly unintended, but for goodness sake think these things through a little better... And PROOFREAD.

Women! You have no concept of the depth of male simplicity. And until you do, our world is doomed

Charlie Brooker
The Guardian, Monday 1 June 2009

Women - why aren't you running the world yet? Frankly I'm disappointed in you. Men are still far too dominant for their own good, and consequently we've made a testosterone-sodden pig's ear of just about everything: politics, the economy, religion, the environment ... you name it, it's in a gigantic man-wrought mess. The world's been one big dick-swinging contest, and we've caught our collective glans in a nearby desk fan. By rights we should be squealing for your help, but we're not, because we're too damn stupid and too damn proud. We swagger convincingly, and that's about it. And swaggering's fine for scraping by in primitive times, but the world we've built is altogether more complex now. We've got stock exchanges and nuclear warheads. It's too easy to swagger your way into big trouble without even realising. Well, we've had our turn. It's time for the Rise of the Ladies.

We don't need a few women in conspicuous positions of power scattered here and there - we need a 10-year prohibition on all forms of male power. Seriously: a decade in which men don't get to control anything, from the remote control upwards. Imagine the consequences. For one thing, there would be an instant and massive reduction in armed conflict around the globe. Sure, nations would routinely bitch about each other in secret (and with a new, hair-curling viciousness), but there'd be fewer intercontinental punch-ups and a far smaller bodycount.

The economy should clearly be run by women. City boys are dicks, plain and simple. Look at them. Listen to them. Consider the carnage of the past 10 years. What the hell were these idiots thinking? Even now they're still at it. In any sane world they'd all be herded into a shed and blasted with hoses until they promised to stop. Everything they say, think, do, watch, read and fill up their iPods with is awful. Even their girlfriends are awful. Straight women, reading this: if your partner is a city boy, leave him. Leave him now. Dump him with a text message, right this very second. It'll hurt for about six days, then your life will improve beyond measure. Sod that little number-swapping dick who dares call himself a man. Lob him in the shed with the other squeaking fakes and train the cold jets on the bastards. Shut the door and let them shiver.

Men love machines, because machines remind them of themselves. As a result, men quickly became very very good at building machines and then driving them round rather too quickly, shouting "Toot toot! Look at me in my brilliant car!" This was cute for a while, but the novelty's worn off now that the planet's teetering on the brink of becoming an inhospitable cinder. Please, women, for all our sakes: just lock us in a room with some Lego or something. I'm sorry, but we're just too bloody stupid to save the planet. Looks like you'll have to clean up our mess once again. Mankind's depending on you.

"This is all very well, but none too realistic," thinks the female reader. "Men aren't just going to hand over the reins that easily. I know what men are like. They're self-righteous and stubborn - just like women, but worse."

Oh, you. Pretty, silly you. We've got you brainwashed. See, that's what our incessant, ruinous swaggering was all about: pretending to be more complex and dangerous than we actually are. In truth your suspicions are correct: we're very, very simple. We're lazy and we like blowjobs. That's all there is to us. Literally: that's it. From Sir John Betjeman to Barack Obama, from Copernicus to Liam Gallagher. The core software we run on could fit in the memory of a digital watch circa 1985 without even scraping the sides.

And you know this, you women. You know this of course, but it's so dazzlingly obvious you actually doubt it's true. Most of my friends are women. I often find myself counselling them as they agonise for hours, trying to fathom what men are thinking, what men want. Yet no matter who they're talking about, or what the circumstance, from my perspective the answer always seems so glaringly basic it could be scratched on the back of a button. This one wants a shag. That one wants a biscuit. Every time: the butler did it.

The only mistake women make is crediting men with far more mystery than they're capable of. We're impulsive yet thuddingly predictable, and you'd better learn to love us for it because that's just about all we can muster. That's why we bollocksed the planet up. We didn't mean to. We're men, that's all.

And now, surely now, it's time for you to shunt us off the podium and take charge for a decade. If only as an experiment to see what happens. I for one welcome our titted overlords. Give us our toys and our daily bread and permit us to lie on the sofa for 10 whole years, like snoozy, spluttering pigs. We get to loll around contentedly, you get to save the world. Sound good? Do we have a deal? Well do we, you wonderful bitches?

Women! You have no concept of the depth of male simplicity. And until you do, our world is doomed

Charlie Brooker
The Guardian, Monday 1 June 2009

Women - why aren't you running the world yet? Frankly I'm disappointed in you. Men are still far too dominant for their own good, and consequently we've made a testosterone-sodden pig's ear of just about everything: politics, the economy, religion, the environment ... you name it, it's in a gigantic man-wrought mess. The world's been one big dick-swinging contest, and we've caught our collective glans in a nearby desk fan. By rights we should be squealing for your help, but we're not, because we're too damn stupid and too damn proud. We swagger convincingly, and that's about it. And swaggering's fine for scraping by in primitive times, but the world we've built is altogether more complex now. We've got stock exchanges and nuclear warheads. It's too easy to swagger your way into big trouble without even realising. Well, we've had our turn. It's time for the Rise of the Ladies.

We don't need a few women in conspicuous positions of power scattered here and there - we need a 10-year prohibition on all forms of male power. Seriously: a decade in which men don't get to control anything, from the remote control upwards. Imagine the consequences. For one thing, there would be an instant and massive reduction in armed conflict around the globe. Sure, nations would routinely bitch about each other in secret (and with a new, hair-curling viciousness), but there'd be fewer intercontinental punch-ups and a far smaller bodycount.

The economy should clearly be run by women. City boys are dicks, plain and simple. Look at them. Listen to them. Consider the carnage of the past 10 years. What the hell were these idiots thinking? Even now they're still at it. In any sane world they'd all be herded into a shed and blasted with hoses until they promised to stop. Everything they say, think, do, watch, read and fill up their iPods with is awful. Even their girlfriends are awful. Straight women, reading this: if your partner is a city boy, leave him. Leave him now. Dump him with a text message, right this very second. It'll hurt for about six days, then your life will improve beyond measure. Sod that little number-swapping dick who dares call himself a man. Lob him in the shed with the other squeaking fakes and train the cold jets on the bastards. Shut the door and let them shiver.

Men love machines, because machines remind them of themselves. As a result, men quickly became very very good at building machines and then driving them round rather too quickly, shouting "Toot toot! Look at me in my brilliant car!" This was cute for a while, but the novelty's worn off now that the planet's teetering on the brink of becoming an inhospitable cinder. Please, women, for all our sakes: just lock us in a room with some Lego or something. I'm sorry, but we're just too bloody stupid to save the planet. Looks like you'll have to clean up our mess once again. Mankind's depending on you.

"This is all very well, but none too realistic," thinks the female reader. "Men aren't just going to hand over the reins that easily. I know what men are like. They're self-righteous and stubborn - just like women, but worse."

Oh, you. Pretty, silly you. We've got you brainwashed. See, that's what our incessant, ruinous swaggering was all about: pretending to be more complex and dangerous than we actually are. In truth your suspicions are correct: we're very, very simple. We're lazy and we like blowjobs. That's all there is to us. Literally: that's it. From Sir John Betjeman to Barack Obama, from Copernicus to Liam Gallagher. The core software we run on could fit in the memory of a digital watch circa 1985 without even scraping the sides.

And you know this, you women. You know this of course, but it's so dazzlingly obvious you actually doubt it's true. Most of my friends are women. I often find myself counselling them as they agonise for hours, trying to fathom what men are thinking, what men want. Yet no matter who they're talking about, or what the circumstance, from my perspective the answer always seems so glaringly basic it could be scratched on the back of a button. This one wants a shag. That one wants a biscuit. Every time: the butler did it.

The only mistake women make is crediting men with far more mystery than they're capable of. We're impulsive yet thuddingly predictable, and you'd better learn to love us for it because that's just about all we can muster. That's why we bollocksed the planet up. We didn't mean to. We're men, that's all.

And now, surely now, it's time for you to shunt us off the podium and take charge for a decade. If only as an experiment to see what happens. I for one welcome our titted overlords. Give us our toys and our daily bread and permit us to lie on the sofa for 10 whole years, like snoozy, spluttering pigs. We get to loll around contentedly, you get to save the world. Sound good? Do we have a deal? Well do we, you wonderful bitches?

So, to summarize: painting everything with the widest brush possible, stereotypes everywhere, it's the fault of women for not taking over the world, because look how incompetent us manchildren are (by the way please take care of us!!), "titted overlords"? I hope that article's a joke. I've seen too much writing exactly like that which wasn't. It's getting harder to tell.

Guys, I find this fellows's writing a bit odd as well, but for all we know he could be an ESL student-- so let's try to tone down the judgement?

Dunno if you mean my comment or one of the many others, but an ESL student should still retake a class if they are on the verge of failing (as he states he is) and his extra credit project is full of errors. It's not a judgment or punishment. It's not an insult to his character. It's just a fact that someone who is BARELY passing a class should probably retake it. My aunt is an ESL professor in the UC system and has no problem failing students. It's a disservice to pass them if they are unprepared, because it will hinder their ability to keep up in future classes.